Folios 206-222. To: The General Board of Health. From: Henry Wrigg, Surveyor, Preston...

Folios 206-222.

To: The General Board of Health.

From: Henry Wrigg, Surveyor, Preston Local Board of Health [Lancashire].

Subject Matter: Letter in reference to a memorial [petition] from the ratepayers of the Township of Fishwick, praying to be separated from the District of Preston for the purposes of the Public Health Act 1848, forwarded by the General Board on 3 June 1851. He observes that the Local Board have not been sent copies of any correspondence between the Fishwick ratepayers and the General Board, and so cannot comment on the memorialists' reasons. He quotes the report of the Superintending Inspector which judged the District to comprise both townships of Preston and Fishwick. He states that, should an exemption from the Act be granted to Fishwick, three other portions of Preston are likely to ask for exemptions, and it would be difficult to refuse their requests. He submits that the Local Board have no objection to the Township of Fishwick only paying for permanent works from which it will benefit, but they cannot countenance exempting the township from paying its fair proportion of the general district rate for works which benefit the whole town [of Preston]. It is explained that, although Fishwick only has 57 ratepayers, it has a resident population of 1005, and that a large number of Preston's labouring population work in two large mills in the township. He states that much of the agricultural land there is being rapidly converted into building land, and that the rate on the land only amounts to 2d in the pound, in exchange for which the land will have the benefit of better roads.

Wrigg disputes the claim of the memorialists that all crime in Fishwick is dealt with by the County, stating that it depends whether the County Police or Borough Police make the arrest in a particular case, and that 'almost all cases arising from disputes between masters and servants in the township of Fishwick are taken for adjudication before the Borough Magistrates'.

He states that the none of the works begun in Preston up to 1 May 1851 under the provisions of the Act have been, or will be, funded by any rate levied from the inhabitants of Fishwick, and the reason that no works have begun in Fishwick is that the Act only came into force there on 23 May 1851.

Wrigg concludes by saying that, should Fishwick obtain an exemption, the town of Preston will benefit from the Act and will have 'every reason to dread the proximity of Fishwick, where no such results would have been obtained'. He submits that the view of the Local Board, that the District ought not to be separated, has been strengthened by the report of the General Board's own officer on the matter. He draws attention to the fact that 11 of the 32 names on the memorial appear not to be ratepayers. He states that two members of the Local Board will be in London next Monday to wait upon the General Board, with a view to supporting the opinions he advances in this letter.